Existentialism and Common senses

Doubtless, we are living in the age of existentialism. But a relevant significant point to existentialism is: "since existentialism is depend on individuals, there could not be a common rule for all individuals to do and follow and so every individual has to follow h/is own way of thought. So nothing to share with others and nothing to ask of others, because of difference in very fundamental part of human existence.
I believe that, we need to revalue it, in order to make it more depend on society, more depend on human community; and more depend on common rules. 

But no doubt, existentialism is prior to common senses.

Is signature not required? 46 VII I B 200 - S. Kierkegaard.

... But this I thought was the meaning of life, that the individual shook off the habit of accepting the favours of difference, should that be tempting, steeled himself against its humiliation, should that weigh down on him, in order to find the universal, what is common to all human beings, to concern himself only with that. Oh! how beautiful to lose oneself in this way. But then I thought again that in the having of this concern the meaning of life was to be concerned for oneself as if the particular individual was all there was. Oh! how beautiful thus to find oneself in the universal! If the universal is the rule then the individual is the paradigm [corrected from: demand]; if the universal is the demand then the individual is the fulfillment; if the universal is everything, if the universal says everything, then the particular individual believes that the everything is said about him - him alone.

So if the place and context here did not require a signature, none would be needed, for again it is infinitely inconsequential who has said it (as though the favoured one said it, the one who was one said it, the one who was wronged being in no position to say it, since after all they all have it in them to do it.)

Is signature not required? 46 VII I B 200 - S. Kierkegaard.